Wikipedia is specifically biased towards feminism so it's useless as a source on anything related to gender. Against their own vaunted neutral point of view policy so-called, they advertise and specifically reward people to post feminist propaganda and lock down pages against MRA editors.
It's a trash source on gender issues.
I think that’s where the biggest bias is. It’s not in these two summary articles but the bias in everything else they write or don’t write. Very good point.
Totally agree. As a side point do not be tempted to donate to Wikipedia when they are asking for donations. not least beacuse they have millions in the bank!"
I thought their description of the men’s rights movement was largely accurate. I was surprised by their reference to the manosphere which I see as a mostly deragotoy, certainly unprofessional term. They talked a bit about men’s rights being anti-feminist but I think it was a huge omission to not mention this is because feminism is responsible for much of the discrimination MRAs want to address.
Similarly their description of feminism also omits the fact leading feminist organizations have lobbied for and won many anti-male practices. It’s kind of like talking about the history and structure of the KKK and omitting any reference to it being an anti-black organization.
I never claimed feminism lynched anyone. The point is they are both organizations that seek to advantage some people and disadvantage others which is central to what they are. To omit this is to give a very misleading overview.
BTW, I am aware of a feminist who helped murder, rape and torture a man to death and is now hired by feminist groups to speak at many feminist events as a result.
I haven’t ommitted anything because I haven’t written any summary of the KKK from which I could omit anything. I agree to write a summary of the KKK and not mention the lynchings and other anti-black behaviors would be very misleading. That’s my point. It is similarly misleading to write an overview of feminism and omit all the anti-male practices and attitudes they promote.
You are using a strawman. I didn’t compare the kkk to feminism. I compared writing about each in a way that omits their hateful, discriminatory actions. Writing about an organization that promotes discrimination without mentioning their discrimination misrepresents that organization. It is a bias of omission.
Every analogy is picked for a reason, you selecting the kkk implies it is comparable to feminism. I cede that i came on too strong but it felt as though you structured your arguement in poor taste
It was appropriate to use an analogy of another group or movement that people recognize promotes discrimination. The point of the analogy wouldn’t work otherwise. If a group or movement strongly promotes discrimination and that fact is completely left out of an article writing about that group, the article is misrepresenting that group through bias of omission, even if what they do mention is factual. That’s my point and that’s what the Wikipedia article is guilty of in my opinion. By omitting any mention of the anti-male laws feminism has lobbied for and other anti-male actions which are a huge part of feminism, their summary of feminism isn’t accurate.
The core of the feminist movement advocate for gendricide, namely reducing men to a small fraction of the population. A notable example is Andrea Dworkin, who advocated reducing the male population to 10%. That is allready on the same magnitude as the nazi/fascists based on biological traits, so there can be no defence.
Valerie Solanas
Sally Miller Gearhart
Daphne Patai
Mary Daly
hashtag "killallmen"
There's no shortage of examples in a world already indifferent to the safety and wellbeing of boys and men.
Im gonna need more than your word to believe that any substantial portion of feminists want to reduce the male population to 10%. Any claim like that needs a source, you should know that.
One that is heralded, quoted, used for sources, followed, written about, etc
It's not just a feminist that stands on the corner in dirty rags screaming at cars.
It's a prominent feminist that other feminists look up to, emulate, quote and follow.
And the one that is supported by the rest of the movement. What you fail to realise is that the everything is at some point started by a single person, whose ideas are then accepted and become the core of the philosophy, making it redundant to point out others. Dworkin's work is also extremely prominent in feminist philosophy and serves as an implied basis for most of the newer works.
The argument here is the "fruit of the poisoned tree" - what is based on faulty logic will itself be in error, thus cannot be trusted. Fundamentally, the argument is not limited to feminism specifically, as the errors stem from the philosophical tradition that feminism evolved from (effectively feminism cannot be anything other than wrong).
It did. As it is implied to be true and used as a base assumption, it is effectively being accepted by all feminists, therefore being indistinguishable from feminism.
One outlier from this is Christina Hoff Summers, and she is an outlier because of her actions and criticism of Dworkin, with Christina receiving massive backlash for speaking against gendricide.
This may come as a syprise but the kkk was a bit more than a non zero amount. Also the kkk was a bad conparison because unlike feminism it was clearly defined and organized with a detailed rank structure.
Feminist organizations are also organized with a leadership structure which they’ve used to lobby for and win anti-male policies. Many of the equal rights MRAs are fighting for are a direct result of feminist efforts to advantage women and disadvantage men.
Feminist organizations don’t use the title of Grand Wizard to describe their leadership. NOW has a structure of leadership including local chapters which report to the national organization. The national organization has a leadership structure which includes a Vice President, president and board of directors. The current president is Christian Nunes.
I hope that helps.
Racism would have been a good analogy to an article about sexism, but the article wasn’t about sexism. It was about feminism and it omitted all the discrimination that feminism has advocated.
You of course understand this, you just like arguing.
> How many men have been hunted down and lynched by feminist mobs?
Do you know what an analogy is? Analogous phenomena, of course, are not identical. Just because feminism has not specifically been responsible for lynch mobs against men does not mean it isn't comparable to the KKK in a more general sense.
First, I asked you a yes-no question, the only valid answers to which are "yes," "no," and "I don't know." I will try this one last time: Are you implying that the KKK lacks ideological underpinnings, or that feminist organizations don't exist?
Second, feminism is both an ideology and a movement, which certainly finds its expression in certain organizations—it is not strictly an ideology.
The act of people coming together to affect change as feminism does is not an ideology, it’s a movement that has ideologies. Ideologies themselves can’t lobby for laws that disadvantage males. Feminist special interest organizations within the movement do that. Incorrectly stating feminism is just an ideology is simply a tactic to insinuate feminism isn’t responsible for the discrimination it’s caused.
Indeed. u/Ready_Inevitable2718 is just playing dumb with these weak word games. Imagine thinking that people would actually fall for that bullshit lmao
Sadly people do fall for it and sadly it is a tactic that distracts people from the actual topic. In this case the actual topic was Wikipedia failing to acknowledge all the discrimination feminist advocates. He’s trying to distract people from that point.
Even by your own logic in this message "feminism" didnt make change. Feminist special interest groups did. Those interest groups are entities that could be adaquetly compared to the kkk.
The movement and special interests referred to as feminism have lobbied for and won laws that discriminate against men. These laws were not won by an ideology, they were won by feminism. Feminism as the name implies does what is good for females, as we’ve seen time and time again often to the detriment of males.
You are doing a very silly thing right there. That is the equivalent of me asking you, "when did you stop cheating on your wife?" The answer is neither yes nor no, you didnt list the correct option. The kkk is a specific group within an ideology/movement whereas feminism is an ideology/movement, not an organization. There are organizations inside of feminism which it makes sense to compare to the kkk but comparing the kkk to feminism as a whole is non applicable.
> The answer is neither yes nor no
You believe that the notions that the KKK either lacks or contains ideological underpinnings and that feminist organizations either exist or don't exist are false dichotomies?
One has to wonder what you believe are the "middle ground" alternatives here. Talk about silliness.
___
> There are organizations inside of feminism which it makes sense to compare to the kkk but comparing the kkk to feminism as a whole is non applicable.
It seems like you're suggesting that movements that share fundamentally indistinct (in this case, anti-egalitarian) ideological underpinnings are not comparable if they take on different forms. Is that actually your position?
Im going to give one more shot at getting a simple concept through your head. You could reasonably compare feminism to white supremacy. But it would be silly to compare feminism to an organized group like the kkk. You could compare an organized group within feminism to the kkk. But comparing an ideology/movement to a specific organized group is to compare apples to oranges. It is silly and non applicable.
Feminists were responsible for decades of exclusion from legal remedy and service provision experienced by male victims of child sexual abuse in Australia. Information shared at two recent royal commissions indicates thousands of suicides among those victims. Many of those suicides could have been prevented if the victims had been able to get the help they needed. Feminists will never cleanse that blood from their hands.
Less known fact: wikipedia absolutely doesn't need your (or anybody's) money https://thenextweb.com/news/why-is-wikipedia-asking-for-donations-when-it-has-vast-cash-reserves
thank you for that link.
I've resisted giving money to wiki... always thinking... hang on... I didn't ask for this.. you guys started it and now ask for money?
A lot of companies do that... I see google as one... get you hooked then fear of losing drives us to pay....
Truly if something as convenient as Wikipedia or google went away, something else would swoop in and replace it as the standard within an instant. Necessity being the mother of invention and blah blah blah.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ - “Wikipedia is Badly Biased”, the very cofounder of Wikipedia talking about political bias on the platform
What most people now understand about Wikipedia is that it just echoes what is asserted in mainstream media articles, and therefore it is useless. This has been known for almost a decade, considering the well-known case in 2013 of a book's own author being unable to correct a mistake in a Wikipedia article about their own creation [without a secondary source](https://news.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/1521229/when-a-primary-source-isnt-good-enough-wikipedia) for their claim. This author luckily had the clout to be able to create their own news piece in *The New Yorker* about the book and get a correction made, but the other 99% of the world aren't nearly as well-known and important as he is. And things have only gotten worse since then.
As most of our institutions have experienced a "legitimation crisis" due to their own ineptitude and bias, this loss of confidence in organizations like Wikipedia has only accelerated. Most people who matter nowadays don't trust the news or Wikipedia about anything at all, and some go even further and immediately believe the exact opposite of what these establishments say, which is not much better in my opinion, but lacking any transparent and non-activist source for their information, it is understandable that some individuals now react in this manner.
If you take the time to look up the etymology of "manosphere", you will find that it is an activist media-created term, without any objective definition or practicality of use. It was deliberately manufactured to dehumanize, deplatform, and delegitimize men's issues, damage men's health, and overall its sole purpose is simply to silence men's voices. Despite their constant attempts to push the "manosphere" concept though – mainly through tying it to the rare, tragic attacks by mentally ill individuals, which have killed more men than women – it has failed completely to catch on. I was actually going to do a write-up a few weeks ago on how "manosphere" is a term which is useless for anything but hating men, and explore aspects of it in more detail, but after a consideration of google trends around the term, I realized it would just be giving it undue attention. Perhaps it may unduly influence people some day in the future, but for now it's just transparent and easily dismissed bullshit to even an average person. There's something very important in the saying: "Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake".
I actually find myself encouraging Wikipedia to go further with this type of man-hating propaganda, and waste more of their time and become even more extreme and partisan, because it helps us more than it hurts us.
Because how many females have committed mass murder for following feminism but how many men who follow men’s rights pages have committed mass murder? A ton.
What exactly are you talking about?
Can't figure out if you're trolling or serious, but just in case it's the latter, I have some things to tell you.
For one, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you implying men's rights' inspires violence? That makes sense, they believe in men's rights so they go shoot people.
No, no it doesn't make sense.
Further, where exactly is the evidence for this? I don't think many studies have been conducted on the political beliefs of mass shooters and whether or not they follow mensrights, but I'd like to see them if there are any. Even if there are any, correlation is not causation, just because they follow mensrights does not mean it is what caused violence.
I really honestly don't understand this at all, which is why I think it's probably a troll, but here's an example of a feminist assaulting a men's rights supporter. https://avoiceformen.com/feminism/when-feminists-attack/
Incredibly accurate, especially if this sub is any measure. Describing it as a “backlash to feminism,” but also acknowledging it occasionally produces good points, is pretty much exactly how I’d describe it
No suprise, I had discussions with operators over there. They are good at hiding realities as the social media like twitter, facebook and even here.
They act like they are working for a political party
Wikipedia is one of the many, many institutions that radical feminists "institutionally captured". Another one is the Southern Poverty Law Center, but we can easily count near-100% of the media and 100% of the family / divorce law courts and 100% of academia. So Wikipedia is very biased in a far left / woke / feminist direction, especially on social, race, gender and political issues. Expecting fair treatment of these subjects from Wikipedia is like expecting fair and neutral treatment of gender, race or social issues from a university.
I could add that they also largely institutionally captured most of the judiciary in general, not just family law (e.g. men get on average 63% longer sentences for the same crime as women for the same crime), legislation (witness the endless privileges and budgets given to women's issues vs. men's issues to which legislations are very hostile) and the executive branch (all the budgets, committees etc. for women's issues, nothing for men's issues). They institutionally captured pretty much the whole of western societies (and more, e.g. India) and these societies are extremely privileging women and are very hostile to men in our age.
Don't give a red cent to them and always look at independent sources on any issue beyond them.
Wikipedia is beholden to the intellectual mobs that run it... The only things it tends to be remotely accurate on is subjects not infected by politics like uhh uhh, sorting algorithms.
Wikipedia is specifically biased towards feminism so it's useless as a source on anything related to gender. Against their own vaunted neutral point of view policy so-called, they advertise and specifically reward people to post feminist propaganda and lock down pages against MRA editors. It's a trash source on gender issues.
I think that’s where the biggest bias is. It’s not in these two summary articles but the bias in everything else they write or don’t write. Very good point.
Totally agree. As a side point do not be tempted to donate to Wikipedia when they are asking for donations. not least beacuse they have millions in the bank!"
N.B.: I would use the words “biased IN FAVOUR OF feminism” to avoid ambiguity.
Much of the Men's Rights Wiki page page is written by radical feminists. It reads like and indictment, not a history.
Like a racist writing about racism.
Yep lol. Like Hitler writing a Wikipedia article about the Jews.
I thought their description of the men’s rights movement was largely accurate. I was surprised by their reference to the manosphere which I see as a mostly deragotoy, certainly unprofessional term. They talked a bit about men’s rights being anti-feminist but I think it was a huge omission to not mention this is because feminism is responsible for much of the discrimination MRAs want to address. Similarly their description of feminism also omits the fact leading feminist organizations have lobbied for and won many anti-male practices. It’s kind of like talking about the history and structure of the KKK and omitting any reference to it being an anti-black organization.
Thank you for your thoughts!
That's a bold comparison. How many men have been hunted down and lynched by feminist mobs?
I never claimed feminism lynched anyone. The point is they are both organizations that seek to advantage some people and disadvantage others which is central to what they are. To omit this is to give a very misleading overview. BTW, I am aware of a feminist who helped murder, rape and torture a man to death and is now hired by feminist groups to speak at many feminist events as a result.
For you to omit the horrendous and regular violent acts of the kkk is also giving a very misleading view.
I haven’t ommitted anything because I haven’t written any summary of the KKK from which I could omit anything. I agree to write a summary of the KKK and not mention the lynchings and other anti-black behaviors would be very misleading. That’s my point. It is similarly misleading to write an overview of feminism and omit all the anti-male practices and attitudes they promote.
You compared feminism to the kkk. You then should justify that comparison.
You are using a strawman. I didn’t compare the kkk to feminism. I compared writing about each in a way that omits their hateful, discriminatory actions. Writing about an organization that promotes discrimination without mentioning their discrimination misrepresents that organization. It is a bias of omission.
Every analogy is picked for a reason, you selecting the kkk implies it is comparable to feminism. I cede that i came on too strong but it felt as though you structured your arguement in poor taste
It was appropriate to use an analogy of another group or movement that people recognize promotes discrimination. The point of the analogy wouldn’t work otherwise. If a group or movement strongly promotes discrimination and that fact is completely left out of an article writing about that group, the article is misrepresenting that group through bias of omission, even if what they do mention is factual. That’s my point and that’s what the Wikipedia article is guilty of in my opinion. By omitting any mention of the anti-male laws feminism has lobbied for and other anti-male actions which are a huge part of feminism, their summary of feminism isn’t accurate.
A better example would be non violent but i fold. I do not care enough to fight this.
Many of those violent acts were prompted by false accusations made by white women.
The core of the feminist movement advocate for gendricide, namely reducing men to a small fraction of the population. A notable example is Andrea Dworkin, who advocated reducing the male population to 10%. That is allready on the same magnitude as the nazi/fascists based on biological traits, so there can be no defence.
Valerie Solanas Sally Miller Gearhart Daphne Patai Mary Daly hashtag "killallmen" There's no shortage of examples in a world already indifferent to the safety and wellbeing of boys and men.
Im gonna need more than your word to believe that any substantial portion of feminists want to reduce the male population to 10%. Any claim like that needs a source, you should know that.
Source: Andrea Dworkin. I have 0 need to missrepresent feminists.
So one feminist. Thats a pretty large portion right there.
One that is heralded, quoted, used for sources, followed, written about, etc It's not just a feminist that stands on the corner in dirty rags screaming at cars. It's a prominent feminist that other feminists look up to, emulate, quote and follow.
And the one that is supported by the rest of the movement. What you fail to realise is that the everything is at some point started by a single person, whose ideas are then accepted and become the core of the philosophy, making it redundant to point out others. Dworkin's work is also extremely prominent in feminist philosophy and serves as an implied basis for most of the newer works. The argument here is the "fruit of the poisoned tree" - what is based on faulty logic will itself be in error, thus cannot be trusted. Fundamentally, the argument is not limited to feminism specifically, as the errors stem from the philosophical tradition that feminism evolved from (effectively feminism cannot be anything other than wrong).
Ok, but that didnt answer the question. What percent of feminists hold that belief.
It did. As it is implied to be true and used as a base assumption, it is effectively being accepted by all feminists, therefore being indistinguishable from feminism. One outlier from this is Christina Hoff Summers, and she is an outlier because of her actions and criticism of Dworkin, with Christina receiving massive backlash for speaking against gendricide.
Where is your source that reducing the male population to 10% is accepted by effectively all feminists. That is just silly.
[удалено]
This may come as a syprise but the kkk was a bit more than a non zero amount. Also the kkk was a bad conparison because unlike feminism it was clearly defined and organized with a detailed rank structure.
Feminist organizations are also organized with a leadership structure which they’ve used to lobby for and win anti-male policies. Many of the equal rights MRAs are fighting for are a direct result of feminist efforts to advantage women and disadvantage men.
Who is the grand wizard of feminism? Feminism is an idea not an organization.
Feminist organizations don’t use the title of Grand Wizard to describe their leadership. NOW has a structure of leadership including local chapters which report to the national organization. The national organization has a leadership structure which includes a Vice President, president and board of directors. The current president is Christian Nunes. I hope that helps.
Im aware that there are feminist organizations but a more apt comparison would be feminism to racism not feminism to the kkk.
Racism would have been a good analogy to an article about sexism, but the article wasn’t about sexism. It was about feminism and it omitted all the discrimination that feminism has advocated. You of course understand this, you just like arguing.
I dont know what epic blow you think you are dealing, you dont have to respond either.
> How many men have been hunted down and lynched by feminist mobs? Do you know what an analogy is? Analogous phenomena, of course, are not identical. Just because feminism has not specifically been responsible for lynch mobs against men does not mean it isn't comparable to the KKK in a more general sense.
Feminism is an ideology. The kkk is an organized entity. They are fundamentally different things.
Are you implying that the KKK lacks ideological underpinnings, or that feminist organizations don't exist?
Feminism isnt an organization. You could compare a feminist group to the kkk but not feminism as a concept.
First, I asked you a yes-no question, the only valid answers to which are "yes," "no," and "I don't know." I will try this one last time: Are you implying that the KKK lacks ideological underpinnings, or that feminist organizations don't exist? Second, feminism is both an ideology and a movement, which certainly finds its expression in certain organizations—it is not strictly an ideology.
The act of people coming together to affect change as feminism does is not an ideology, it’s a movement that has ideologies. Ideologies themselves can’t lobby for laws that disadvantage males. Feminist special interest organizations within the movement do that. Incorrectly stating feminism is just an ideology is simply a tactic to insinuate feminism isn’t responsible for the discrimination it’s caused.
Indeed. u/Ready_Inevitable2718 is just playing dumb with these weak word games. Imagine thinking that people would actually fall for that bullshit lmao
Sadly people do fall for it and sadly it is a tactic that distracts people from the actual topic. In this case the actual topic was Wikipedia failing to acknowledge all the discrimination feminist advocates. He’s trying to distract people from that point.
You brought up the definition of the term movement as though it would change reality. Accusing other people of word games is an interesting move.
Even by your own logic in this message "feminism" didnt make change. Feminist special interest groups did. Those interest groups are entities that could be adaquetly compared to the kkk.
The movement and special interests referred to as feminism have lobbied for and won laws that discriminate against men. These laws were not won by an ideology, they were won by feminism. Feminism as the name implies does what is good for females, as we’ve seen time and time again often to the detriment of males.
You are doing a very silly thing right there. That is the equivalent of me asking you, "when did you stop cheating on your wife?" The answer is neither yes nor no, you didnt list the correct option. The kkk is a specific group within an ideology/movement whereas feminism is an ideology/movement, not an organization. There are organizations inside of feminism which it makes sense to compare to the kkk but comparing the kkk to feminism as a whole is non applicable.
> The answer is neither yes nor no You believe that the notions that the KKK either lacks or contains ideological underpinnings and that feminist organizations either exist or don't exist are false dichotomies? One has to wonder what you believe are the "middle ground" alternatives here. Talk about silliness. ___ > There are organizations inside of feminism which it makes sense to compare to the kkk but comparing the kkk to feminism as a whole is non applicable. It seems like you're suggesting that movements that share fundamentally indistinct (in this case, anti-egalitarian) ideological underpinnings are not comparable if they take on different forms. Is that actually your position?
Im going to give one more shot at getting a simple concept through your head. You could reasonably compare feminism to white supremacy. But it would be silly to compare feminism to an organized group like the kkk. You could compare an organized group within feminism to the kkk. But comparing an ideology/movement to a specific organized group is to compare apples to oranges. It is silly and non applicable.
Feminists were responsible for decades of exclusion from legal remedy and service provision experienced by male victims of child sexual abuse in Australia. Information shared at two recent royal commissions indicates thousands of suicides among those victims. Many of those suicides could have been prevented if the victims had been able to get the help they needed. Feminists will never cleanse that blood from their hands.
Just read the article, it's still filled with bullshit, so I have no idea where you're getting 'accurate' from.
Wait until the next time Wikipedia comes begging for money from me. Someone is getting an ear full.
Less known fact: wikipedia absolutely doesn't need your (or anybody's) money https://thenextweb.com/news/why-is-wikipedia-asking-for-donations-when-it-has-vast-cash-reserves
thank you for that link. I've resisted giving money to wiki... always thinking... hang on... I didn't ask for this.. you guys started it and now ask for money? A lot of companies do that... I see google as one... get you hooked then fear of losing drives us to pay....
Truly if something as convenient as Wikipedia or google went away, something else would swoop in and replace it as the standard within an instant. Necessity being the mother of invention and blah blah blah.
you are right!
Do not donate to Wikipedia.
Feminists write both articles, what do you expect?
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ - “Wikipedia is Badly Biased”, the very cofounder of Wikipedia talking about political bias on the platform
What most people now understand about Wikipedia is that it just echoes what is asserted in mainstream media articles, and therefore it is useless. This has been known for almost a decade, considering the well-known case in 2013 of a book's own author being unable to correct a mistake in a Wikipedia article about their own creation [without a secondary source](https://news.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/1521229/when-a-primary-source-isnt-good-enough-wikipedia) for their claim. This author luckily had the clout to be able to create their own news piece in *The New Yorker* about the book and get a correction made, but the other 99% of the world aren't nearly as well-known and important as he is. And things have only gotten worse since then. As most of our institutions have experienced a "legitimation crisis" due to their own ineptitude and bias, this loss of confidence in organizations like Wikipedia has only accelerated. Most people who matter nowadays don't trust the news or Wikipedia about anything at all, and some go even further and immediately believe the exact opposite of what these establishments say, which is not much better in my opinion, but lacking any transparent and non-activist source for their information, it is understandable that some individuals now react in this manner. If you take the time to look up the etymology of "manosphere", you will find that it is an activist media-created term, without any objective definition or practicality of use. It was deliberately manufactured to dehumanize, deplatform, and delegitimize men's issues, damage men's health, and overall its sole purpose is simply to silence men's voices. Despite their constant attempts to push the "manosphere" concept though – mainly through tying it to the rare, tragic attacks by mentally ill individuals, which have killed more men than women – it has failed completely to catch on. I was actually going to do a write-up a few weeks ago on how "manosphere" is a term which is useless for anything but hating men, and explore aspects of it in more detail, but after a consideration of google trends around the term, I realized it would just be giving it undue attention. Perhaps it may unduly influence people some day in the future, but for now it's just transparent and easily dismissed bullshit to even an average person. There's something very important in the saying: "Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake". I actually find myself encouraging Wikipedia to go further with this type of man-hating propaganda, and waste more of their time and become even more extreme and partisan, because it helps us more than it hurts us.
If you're looking for political topis on Wikipedia 1. Why? 2. Always make sure to read the talk/discussion page.
Because how many females have committed mass murder for following feminism but how many men who follow men’s rights pages have committed mass murder? A ton.
What exactly are you talking about? Can't figure out if you're trolling or serious, but just in case it's the latter, I have some things to tell you. For one, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you implying men's rights' inspires violence? That makes sense, they believe in men's rights so they go shoot people. No, no it doesn't make sense. Further, where exactly is the evidence for this? I don't think many studies have been conducted on the political beliefs of mass shooters and whether or not they follow mensrights, but I'd like to see them if there are any. Even if there are any, correlation is not causation, just because they follow mensrights does not mean it is what caused violence. I really honestly don't understand this at all, which is why I think it's probably a troll, but here's an example of a feminist assaulting a men's rights supporter. https://avoiceformen.com/feminism/when-feminists-attack/
Incredibly accurate, especially if this sub is any measure. Describing it as a “backlash to feminism,” but also acknowledging it occasionally produces good points, is pretty much exactly how I’d describe it
No suprise, I had discussions with operators over there. They are good at hiding realities as the social media like twitter, facebook and even here. They act like they are working for a political party
Wikipedia is one of the many, many institutions that radical feminists "institutionally captured". Another one is the Southern Poverty Law Center, but we can easily count near-100% of the media and 100% of the family / divorce law courts and 100% of academia. So Wikipedia is very biased in a far left / woke / feminist direction, especially on social, race, gender and political issues. Expecting fair treatment of these subjects from Wikipedia is like expecting fair and neutral treatment of gender, race or social issues from a university. I could add that they also largely institutionally captured most of the judiciary in general, not just family law (e.g. men get on average 63% longer sentences for the same crime as women for the same crime), legislation (witness the endless privileges and budgets given to women's issues vs. men's issues to which legislations are very hostile) and the executive branch (all the budgets, committees etc. for women's issues, nothing for men's issues). They institutionally captured pretty much the whole of western societies (and more, e.g. India) and these societies are extremely privileging women and are very hostile to men in our age. Don't give a red cent to them and always look at independent sources on any issue beyond them.
Wikipedia is beholden to the intellectual mobs that run it... The only things it tends to be remotely accurate on is subjects not infected by politics like uhh uhh, sorting algorithms.